To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

YOUR WASHINGTON
AND YOU!
A WEEKLY
REPORT
from
KARL MUNDT
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
United States Senate
"FOR A FAIR CHANCE FOR A FREE PEOPLE"
VOLUME XVI (1954) NUMBER 33 - FOR RELEASE AUGUST 25 OR AFTER
Shortly before Congress recessed, the Conference
CONFERENCE Committee of selected House and Senate
COMPLETES Agriculture Committee members completed final
FARM BILL, action on the 1954 Farm legislation--scheduled
to go into effect in 1955 provided it is not
changed or amended before its effective dates. Final result
was a compromise between those desiring to continue straight
90 percent price supports for the six basic crops (wheat and
corn are the two produced in South Dakota) and those favoring a flexible range of price
supports running between 75 percent and 90 percent of parity.
The new law requires the Department of Agriculture to fix price support levels on
corn and wheat (plus rice, tobacco, cotton, and peanuts) at loan levels ranging from
82 1/2 percent to 90 percent of parity. Thus, while those of us who worked, voted and
fought for straight 90 percent price supports did not achieve the victory we sought,
neither was the result the total defeat some feared might occur.
82 1/2 percent is the half-way point between 75 and 90 percent. Price supports under
the new law cannot be set in the lower half of that midway point--they MUST be set somewhere in the upper half (between 82 1/2%and 90%).
I am confident in the next session of Congress another effort will be made to
restore price supports to the 90 percent level, and to find a program for stabilizing
"and supporting more adequately the many farm products not included among the six basics.
Proponents of both theories of price support contend they desire full parity for the
farmer. They disagree sharply on the method to obtain this full parity. I have consistently supported the method of 90% price supports - or better!
IN THE MEANTIME, NO ONE CAN BE SURE JUST WHAT EFFECT THE NEW LAW WILL HAVE ON
PRICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA FARM PRODUCTS UNTIL THE NEW SUPPORT LEVELS ARE ANNOUNCED, AND
THE ASSOCIATED PROGRAMS FOR OTHER PRODUCTS ARE GIVEN A TRY-OUT IN ACTUAL OPERATION.
A study of the Congressional Record during the farm debate clearly
FARM LEGISLATION indicates that Congress realizes that the Farm Problem is an EC0N0M-
IS BI-PARTISAN. IC PROBLEM rather than a POLITICAL ISSUE. There was much crossing
of Party Lines, and on both the Democratic and Republican side of
the center aisle were found active PROPONENTS and vigorous OPPONENTS of the 90 percent
provisions. In the main, the AREA of the country from which a Senator or Representative comes, rather than the PARTY to which he belongs, determines his vote.
For an example of how the crazy-quilt pattern of political alignments developed,
note the following: Strongest supporters of the 90 percent provisions were Senators
Young and Langer of North Dakota; Case and Mundt, South Dakota; and Thye of Minnesota
(all Republicans)--who worked together with Humphrey, Minnesota; Ellender, Louisiana;
Johnson, South Carolina; Eastland, Mississippi; and Johnson, Texas (all Democrats).
Also, the OPPONENTS of the 90 percent extension law were likewise divided between
the two political parties. Strongest (and most effective) opponents of 90 percent
price supports were "The Big Three" of our Senate Committee on Agriculture: Aiken, of
Vermont, Chairman of the Committee (Republican); Anderson of New Mexico, former U. S.
Secretary of Agriculture (Democrat); and Holland of Florida (Democrat) who spoke for
nearly five hours AGAINST our 90 percent extension provisions of the law.
MUNDT VOTES "NO" ON FARM BILL. Final vote on adoption of the Conference Committee
version of the farm program came at midnight. I voted AGAINST the final bill due to its
sliding price supports ranging from 82 1/2% to 90%. On the Senate floor during the debate
I said in part: "Mr. President, I opposed these reduced price supports when the Bill
was before us last week. After we lost the fight to extend 90% price supports, I then
voted for Senate version of the farm bill BECAUSE to have defeated it would have left us
with the Anderson Bill of 1949 - with its drastic forcing of price supports down to the
range of 75% to 90%. However, now we face a different situation. Instead of improving
the Senate version, the Conferees have weakened it. By defeating this conference version
we send the Bill back to Conference - we do not kill the legislation. Perhaps in a new
Conference dairy supports can be raised at least to 77 1/2% - maybe 80%. Other correctives
could be added. At least we now run no risk of getting the 75% to 90% sliding supports
since defeating the Conference report sends the whole Bill back to Conference for further
revision in the same manner that the Atomic Energy Bill slowly, but surely, was improved
by sending it to Conference. A vote against this Conference Committee is your best way
way to register a protest against dropping price supports below 90% and our best hope to
force the Conference Committee to bring back a better bill for American Agriculture. I
will not vote to endorse or underwrite this reduction in support levels for our basic
crops."
Senator Young of North Dakota and I led off in the Senate debate opposing the adoption of the Conference Report and urging that the farm legislation be sent back to Conference. Numerous Senators participated in debate on both sides of the "90% parity
issue". Our fight will not stop until our farmers receive the parity income they deserve!

The work from which this copy was made did not include a formal copyright notice. This work may be protected by U.S. copyright law (Title 17, United States Code), which governs reproduction, distribution, public display, and other uses of protected works. Some uses may be legal with permission from the copyright holder, if the copyright on the work has expired, or if the use is fair use or compliance with the law. All use of DLSD material and content, whether utilized under fair use or used with written permission to publish, must name the Karl E. Mundt Historical & Educational Foundation, Karl E. Mundt Library, Dakota State University, as the original source for the material.

The work from which this copy was made did not include a formal copyright notice. This work may be protected by U.S. copyright law (Title 17, United States Code), which governs reproduction, distribution, public display, and other uses of protected works. Some uses may be legal with permission from the copyright holder, if the copyright on the work has expired, or if the use is fair use or compliance with the law. All use of DLSD material and content, whether utilized under fair use or used with written permission to publish, must name the Karl E. Mundt Historical & Educational Foundation, Karl E. Mundt Library, Dakota State University, as the original source for the material.

Date Digitized

2009-07-06

Transcript

YOUR WASHINGTON
AND YOU!
A WEEKLY
REPORT
from
KARL MUNDT
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
United States Senate
"FOR A FAIR CHANCE FOR A FREE PEOPLE"
VOLUME XVI (1954) NUMBER 33 - FOR RELEASE AUGUST 25 OR AFTER
Shortly before Congress recessed, the Conference
CONFERENCE Committee of selected House and Senate
COMPLETES Agriculture Committee members completed final
FARM BILL, action on the 1954 Farm legislation--scheduled
to go into effect in 1955 provided it is not
changed or amended before its effective dates. Final result
was a compromise between those desiring to continue straight
90 percent price supports for the six basic crops (wheat and
corn are the two produced in South Dakota) and those favoring a flexible range of price
supports running between 75 percent and 90 percent of parity.
The new law requires the Department of Agriculture to fix price support levels on
corn and wheat (plus rice, tobacco, cotton, and peanuts) at loan levels ranging from
82 1/2 percent to 90 percent of parity. Thus, while those of us who worked, voted and
fought for straight 90 percent price supports did not achieve the victory we sought,
neither was the result the total defeat some feared might occur.
82 1/2 percent is the half-way point between 75 and 90 percent. Price supports under
the new law cannot be set in the lower half of that midway point--they MUST be set somewhere in the upper half (between 82 1/2%and 90%).
I am confident in the next session of Congress another effort will be made to
restore price supports to the 90 percent level, and to find a program for stabilizing
"and supporting more adequately the many farm products not included among the six basics.
Proponents of both theories of price support contend they desire full parity for the
farmer. They disagree sharply on the method to obtain this full parity. I have consistently supported the method of 90% price supports - or better!
IN THE MEANTIME, NO ONE CAN BE SURE JUST WHAT EFFECT THE NEW LAW WILL HAVE ON
PRICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA FARM PRODUCTS UNTIL THE NEW SUPPORT LEVELS ARE ANNOUNCED, AND
THE ASSOCIATED PROGRAMS FOR OTHER PRODUCTS ARE GIVEN A TRY-OUT IN ACTUAL OPERATION.
A study of the Congressional Record during the farm debate clearly
FARM LEGISLATION indicates that Congress realizes that the Farm Problem is an EC0N0M-
IS BI-PARTISAN. IC PROBLEM rather than a POLITICAL ISSUE. There was much crossing
of Party Lines, and on both the Democratic and Republican side of
the center aisle were found active PROPONENTS and vigorous OPPONENTS of the 90 percent
provisions. In the main, the AREA of the country from which a Senator or Representative comes, rather than the PARTY to which he belongs, determines his vote.
For an example of how the crazy-quilt pattern of political alignments developed,
note the following: Strongest supporters of the 90 percent provisions were Senators
Young and Langer of North Dakota; Case and Mundt, South Dakota; and Thye of Minnesota
(all Republicans)--who worked together with Humphrey, Minnesota; Ellender, Louisiana;
Johnson, South Carolina; Eastland, Mississippi; and Johnson, Texas (all Democrats).
Also, the OPPONENTS of the 90 percent extension law were likewise divided between
the two political parties. Strongest (and most effective) opponents of 90 percent
price supports were "The Big Three" of our Senate Committee on Agriculture: Aiken, of
Vermont, Chairman of the Committee (Republican); Anderson of New Mexico, former U. S.
Secretary of Agriculture (Democrat); and Holland of Florida (Democrat) who spoke for
nearly five hours AGAINST our 90 percent extension provisions of the law.
MUNDT VOTES "NO" ON FARM BILL. Final vote on adoption of the Conference Committee
version of the farm program came at midnight. I voted AGAINST the final bill due to its
sliding price supports ranging from 82 1/2% to 90%. On the Senate floor during the debate
I said in part: "Mr. President, I opposed these reduced price supports when the Bill
was before us last week. After we lost the fight to extend 90% price supports, I then
voted for Senate version of the farm bill BECAUSE to have defeated it would have left us
with the Anderson Bill of 1949 - with its drastic forcing of price supports down to the
range of 75% to 90%. However, now we face a different situation. Instead of improving
the Senate version, the Conferees have weakened it. By defeating this conference version
we send the Bill back to Conference - we do not kill the legislation. Perhaps in a new
Conference dairy supports can be raised at least to 77 1/2% - maybe 80%. Other correctives
could be added. At least we now run no risk of getting the 75% to 90% sliding supports
since defeating the Conference report sends the whole Bill back to Conference for further
revision in the same manner that the Atomic Energy Bill slowly, but surely, was improved
by sending it to Conference. A vote against this Conference Committee is your best way
way to register a protest against dropping price supports below 90% and our best hope to
force the Conference Committee to bring back a better bill for American Agriculture. I
will not vote to endorse or underwrite this reduction in support levels for our basic
crops."
Senator Young of North Dakota and I led off in the Senate debate opposing the adoption of the Conference Report and urging that the farm legislation be sent back to Conference. Numerous Senators participated in debate on both sides of the "90% parity
issue". Our fight will not stop until our farmers receive the parity income they deserve!